The Abolitionists

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by ole

Quote from Rose: "It was about crime and criminals just as John Brown's actions wasn't about pro or anti-slavery. It too, was about criminal actions."
Ole: I will disagree. Anti-abortion and crime in support of that belief is the same as anti-slavery and crime in support of that belief.No more than Northern people could understand the South's reaction to the Kansas unpleasantness (about which I am relying upon some regulars to re-post the references so I don't have to spend a day or two looking them up).

The "south" was justifiably outraged at John Brown's Raid and the "reported" northern reaction to it. Nut-case. The "north" was justifiably outraged at the Lawrence massacre and the "reported" southern reaction to it. Sounds like a draw in these two examples doesn't it?

I'm inclined to believe the fire-eaters had a field day with John Brown and spun Kansas judiciously as a defense of "our rights and culture." It's not a matter of right or wrong, only of what might be considered overly political treatment.

Ole

Ole, thanks for the kind words. I think that what Rose was saying was that Harper's Ferry shouldn't have been viewed by the people in the North and the South as an anti-slavery action but as a crime, to be punished in accordance with the law. Likewise, bombing abortion clinics should not be viewed as an anti-abortion act, but as a criminal act. Does anybody really believe that the cops that arrest Eric Rudolph were acting as pro-abortion agents? Or were they merely enforcing the law?

And no, I don't believe that Lawrence and Harper's Ferry make anything even. Had Southern office holders used their offices to protect the perpetrators of the sack of Lawrence?

As for fire-eaters having a field day with HF and northern reactions to it, you are correct. If Northern Republicans like Kirkwood and Dennsion had surrendered Harper's Ferry raiders to Virginia when demanded (or at least arrested them pending correction of flawed requisition requests), as Pennsylvania's Democratic Governor Packer did, it would have stolen a lot of the wind from secessionist sails. There was a considerable amount of latent unionism in the South, even in 1860. It took a lot of actions by Northerners acting in bad faith to overcome that latent unionism.
Respectfully,
JT

[matthew mckeon]

Dear JohnTaylor,
I think its optimistic to think that the secession would have been derailed by actions by the Northern governors.

I think the prospect of a Republican adminstration possible legal actions restricting or hostile to slavery was of greater concern than JBrown type raids.

In "Half Slave and Half Free" Kevin Levine describes one Southerner's concerns about "black Republicans" appointing "abolitionist" office holders to the federal posts in the slave states, especially "postmasters...controlling the mails and loading them down with incendiary documents."
In other words, he was worried about Lincoln going postal...

[matthew mckeon]

Dear Ole,
In your earlier post you give the classic description of civil disobedience, as practiced by MLKing, Gandhi and others. Yet King functioned in a democracy, with legal rights and media attention where violence directed against protestors backfired. While British rule in India could be harsh and exploitive it also operated within a framework of laws, by a democratic power.
Both American society in the 1950s, and British society in the 1920s and 30s had lost faith in Jim Crow and the Empire respectively.

In contrast, effective nonviolent resistance by slaves in the antebellum South was impossible. Again, if slaves were already outside the law, without rights, why not commit any act?

[MobileBoy]

Matthew,
I don't think so friend.We all know that at most 30 percent of Southerners owned any slaves.Living in the South today poeple very rarely care about govermental policy effecting the very wealthy.They are much more interested in things that directly affect them.I can't imagine antebellum Southerners being that much different.I think this is overlooked by the bogus propaganda out there that assumes that all Southerners of the antebellum period dreamed of being plantation owners with lots of slaves.Most Southerners didn't own slaves nor had any ambition to own any in the future.Now of course the Southern politicians were mainly slaveowners so I wouldn't doubt your view for them,but I don't think your position is accurate for the majority of the Southern politician.I live in Alabama in the deep South and I can tell you everyone was completely up in arms over the 911 attack.Relating that to antebellum days it's not hard to see how angered the general public would have been.I mean imagine what the opinions in New York would have been if Florida refused to hand over 911 terrorist.It is inconcievable that laws sheltering fugitives were freely allowed to be broken.If the government didn't even enforce the law to protect Southern rights then what purpose would there be to remain in that government?Economically an independent South would have gotten along just fine without the Northern states.So there was really no legitimate reason for the Southern states to remain in the Union.Sheltering fugitives is in itself criminal,so what did that make the US government in 1860?
William as you know Americans were basically unilaterally Christian in beliefs during the time we're discussing.The Bible doesn't justify doing a wrong to committ a right.Slavery was rampant in the time of Jesus,but He never condemned it.A fact some Southerners were more than happy to point out. His only mention of slavery was to say that we are all slaves of sin.He did mention to obey the laws of the land.So the Bible doesn't support your theory.It also clearly says to God a sin is a sin.Now from a personal perspective I abhorr slavery and I could agree with doing what you said.The religion of the day however doesn't support that.One could argue that if Northerners didn't have to obey laws they disagreed with why couldn't the South secede and do the same?A government can't allow Northerners to choose and pick which laws they want to obey and expect to maintain any degree of credibility.

[unionblue]

To All,

Some sites on Abolitionism.

American Abolitionism.

http://americanabolitionist.liberalarts.iupui.edu/

More to follow,
Unionblue

[ole]

In contrast, effective nonviolent resistance by slaves in the antebellum South was impossible. Again, if slaves were already outside the law, without rights, why not commit any act?

Matthew:
You are absolutely right -- I forgot to add the incredulous emoticon.

The thing that ticked off the south so much is that some northerners were exercising civil disobedience by not returning those slaves who resigned from their jobs and left the country. On the slaves part, taking the master's property out of state might be considered a form of civil disobedience. You are certainly right that they couldn't very well stage a sit-in.
Ole

[matthew mckeon]

Two points:
First, I made a hilarious Lincoln going postal pun, and nobody picked up on it.

Second, JT has made an argument about John Brown's raid influencing the secession movement. On the very same page I quoted on my previous post 42, a guy from South Carolina remarks that now the Republicans have gained the presidency, the South can expect to be "John Brown'ed"(his use of the name as a verb).

[ole]

Matthew:
I caught the "postal" remark and noted it to myself as very clever. However, you post so many brilliant and clever thoughts, I just chalked it up to another. On a more serious note, I reread that post and copied the following:

I think the prospect of a Republican adminstration possible legal actions restricting or hostile to slavery was of greater concern than JBrown type raids.

Hostility to slavery was of great concern to the politicos in the south. However, they couldn't very well stir up the populace with "they want to take our slaves!" On the other hand, "See! They want to arm slaves to murder us in our beds and defile our womenfolk!" Now that's scary.

The 90 percent that owned no slaves couldn't get very excited about the other 10 percent losing theirs. But the prospect of armed, freed slaves roaming about the country came much too close to home. John Brown's illl-advised action gave the Confederacy much of it's popular support.

Ole

[MobileBoy]

Ole,
You hit the nail on the head with the last argument.By a few Northerners not doing their duty according to the law,it gave the diehard secessionist all the ammuntion they needed to win popular support.It seems ridiculous to think that Southerners gave credence to beliefs of Northerners planning armed insurrection of the slaves,but hey some poeple think that the Iraqi poeple are better off today than they were a few years ago.